Item A: Delta Sand and Gravel - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

applicant on the proposed expansion site. A copy of the ACDP is attached to the application (Exhibit 1). The ACDP requires that the LRAPA-approved Fugitive Dust Control Program be followed at the existing company site. The expansion area shall be added to the ACDP and the Fugitive Dust Control Program shall be implemented on the proposed expansion area. We find that the activities proposed for the expansion area will become subject to the current LRAPA ACDP. (See Exhibit 1, Exhibit G) Bridgewater recommends additional dust control measures and those measures are listed below in these findings. Opponents of the application testified that they believe that the applicant cannot minimize dust conflicts from the proposed mining with nearby residential land uses and believe that the aggregate extraction process (mining) creates significant conflicting amounts of dust. They cite past examples of fugitive dust and complaints to LRAPA (Exhibits 63, Knepler, and 65, DuPriest, as examples). We find that potential dust conflicts have been demonstrated to result primarily from three activities associated with mining and processing of aggregate material. Those activities are 1) excavation of the site for aggregate material, 2) transport of the excavated material to the processing facility and 3) the processing facility (rock crushing operations). We find that the current ACDP includes provisions that regulate the manner in which those activities occur on the existing Delta facility site but that the applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence that these regulations will control production of airborne particulate matter at a level that meets LRAPA (and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality) standards, particularly at point of excavation. Furthermore, we find, based upon testimony provided in the testimony that particulate matter that may be harmful to nearby residents and other urban uses are not readily visible to the eye, cannot be effectively regulated based on visual inspection, and may not be visible in videos submitted as testimony (e.g., Exhibit 267). Testimony indicated that harmful dusts may be created at the point of excavation; that is, at the areas that will be closest to sensitive receptors (e.g., residents and future schools). Evidence in the record also showed substantial winds from the north, northnortheast, eastsoutheast, east, southsoutheast, and south could substantially affect nearby land uses (for example: Exhibit 33b, Concerned Santa Clara Citizens, including reports by Camille Marie Sears and Stephen Kimberley, MD, Exhibit 65, DuPriest, and Exhibit 267, DVD of site conditions). The applicant provided testimony in the form of a DVD (Exhibit 267) of the current extraction process on the existing mining site, intended to show that the process of mining does not produce dust. The DVD showed that the mining of the existing (wet) wall produces virtually no visible dust; however the amount and location of naturally occurring wetness along the exaction wall may be modified by the proposed aquaclude. The DVD also showed that the haul roads, although watered as required by the LRAPA ACDP, were also naturally wet, but that condition may also change because of the aquaclude. Therefore, the visual display of existing conditions is not a convincing indicator of future conditions after the aquaclude is installed. We note that the applicant has testified that the processing facility (the rock crusher and associated facilities) will remain at its current LRAPA-regulated location and will not produce finished aggregate material in excess of its current LRAPA ACDP-mandated levels. The location of the processing facility and its production level is regulated by the ACDP. The applicant has testified that the location of that facility and its production levels will not change as a result of approval of this application, yet, in answer to questions at a public hearing, the applicants also indicated that the production was somewhat flexible and reacted to demand (Exhibit 1, application, and Exhibit 33b, Concerned Santa Clara Citizens, including reports by Camille Marie Sears and Stephen Kimberley, MD.; Exhibit 51, Lane Regional Air Pollution Ordinance - 20